eli5 utreexo:
https://medium.com/@kcalvinalvinn/eli5-utreexo-a-scaling-solution-9531aee3d7ba
miners and wallets verify new blocks with the chain of headers + uteeexo proofs. presto, no blockchain archive needed!
riiiiight?
yes, blockchain archive no longer needed9.1%
no, blockchain archive still needed90.9%
11 votes \ poll ended
Don't the UTREEXO bridge nodes need to be full blockchain archives?
From the docs
https://github.com/utreexo/utreexod
there is option to make bridgenode non archival, so the answer would appear to be no, certainly not EVERY bridgenode needs to be full archival. My poll question could be reformulated, "does any bridgenode need to be full archival?" Intuitively I am with justin_shocknet here and feel that the answer must be yes, and yet the docs are confusing.
A, there is the non archiving bridge node option and
B, (from the link above) " Since miners and nodes publish blocks and transactions without proofs, these nodes are needed to allow for utreexo nodes without a soft fork."
imples that if miners and nodes DID publish blocks and transactions with proofs, there would be no need for bridge nodes. I think probably there is still a need, but a different need than what the documentation is pointing at.
This is all explained better in the utreexo bip
"there are three likely types of nodes:
Compact State Nodes (CSNs)
Bridge nodes
Archive nodes
CSNs have the goal of minimizing data storage and download while performing block validation. Archive and bridge nodes store more data and provide this data to CSNs.
Bridge nodes are nodes that can add inclusion proofs to mempool transactions, support the same set of messages as CSNs, and should in fact be indistinguishable from CSNs on the network. Archive nodes are able to serve the blocks and the inclusion proofs. However, they are not able to generate the inclusion proofs as they do not keep the full UTXO set.
Note that the archive and bridge capabilities of a node are separate; a bridge node can be bridge only, without previous block proof data, and an archive node doesn't need to be able to bridge.
The one exception to this flexibility is that archive nodes must provide both the blocks and the inclusion proofs. While theoretically possible to split these two resources, the blocks are quite small relative to the block proofs, and it simplifies clients to be able to rely on being able to request both over the same connection."
https://github.com/utreexo/biptreexo/blob/main/bip-0183.md
Technically, yes... the archive for all intents and purposes becomes a proof instead of old blocks
Practically though, not everyone would run utreexo from the same block and never go offline. Each new accumulator would have to verify with blocks, and when an accumulators goes offline for any period of time it would need blocks for the time they're offline.
so did you vote yea or no?
Voted no.
Even today everyone could "--assumevalid" the last block hash and delete their archives, but practically the archives are still necessary for the same reasons.
--assumevalid (and --assumeutxo)
Boy is that in interesting can of worms.
Op cant even make the effort to attach sending wallet.
Another Big Talk No Walk Hypocrit.